Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/428

1784), but interest also upon every payment of the annuity, as it became due and in arrear.

But it is objected, that Ledy Rachel was not entitled to interest, because neither she nor her agents claimed the arrears from any of the owners of the estate, and consequently she ought to suffer for her laches and neglect.

Her Ladyship never interfered in business from the time her son came of age till his decease. When Mr. Lloyd, her house steward, died, in 1748, her son himself became her agent, and by himself or his stewards managed her Ladyship's affairs. It was he that hired her servants; it was his steward that settled Mrs. Brompton's account, who was to have been discharged had Mr. Morgan lived a little longer; if then the payment of this annuity was withheld, to whom was the neglect, to whom were laches to be imputed? Certainly not to Lady Rachel; for it was plain, that towards the end of her son's life, when her health grew better, she even then knew nothing of the state of her account with her son; for her housekeeper says in one of the letters above referred to, "If her ladyship was to know how she is used, I don't doubt but she would take a method to right herself; but I am kept under the hatches, lest acquainting her Ladyship, I should give her great trouble." All these circumstances, and the many others by which her Ladyship's forbearance to claim her arrears were accounted for, had been often mentioned before, and could not therefore now be repeated.

When, indeed, on Mr. William Morgan's death, in July 1763, his estates went from her Ladyship's family, the same reasons did not then subsist for concealing from her the conduct of her son's chief steward, in not making the necessary remittances; and it was in proof, that her Ladyship then knew there were large arrears due to her from the estate, though she did not know the amount of them, because the account was unsettled; and because [55] the material books, papers, and vouchers, relating to the account, were then, and for several years afterwards continued in the possession of Mr. Bryan, and of Mr. Charles Morgan, or his brother. It was also in proof, that Lady Rachel did claim these arrears from Mr. Thomas Morgan soon after her son William's death, and Mr. Thomas Morgan's answer on that occasion had been mentioned. The fact of Lady Rachel's selling her Bank stock in December 1763, confirmed the proof of her having claimed the arrears beyond a possibility of doubt. But had no claim whatever been made, still it was submitted, that no laches, no neglect could even in that case have been fixed on Lady Rachel; for when a remainder-man comes into the possession of an estate, which has in the life-time of a preceding tenant in tail been subject to the payment of a rent-charge, (which was the present case,) is it not the peculiar business of such remainder-man, immediately to examine into the state of the account of that rent-charge? Whether the arrear be more or less, the estate is necessarily and unavoidably subject to it. Besides this, the chief books and papers relating to it, were then in Mr. Bryan's hands, who being the confidential servant of Mr. Thomas Morgan the father, would of course have given him any assistance he required. If instead of examining into the state of the account of this rent-charge, and fixing the arrear due at the decease of Mr. William Morgan, the remainder-man goes on making payments from time to time on account of the rent-charge, are not the payments so made on account, a continuation of the former account in the life-time of the preceding tenant in tail? Do not such payments keep the whole account open from 1746, as fresh and as much unliquidated as it was at any former period? How then was it possible to fix any laches or neglect on Lady Rachel? She certainly was not in the least obliged to claim these arrears in 1763, nor could her right be prejudiced, had no such claim been made, for she well knew that she had an open running account with the estate to the hour of her own death, in 1786.

As to Mr. and Mrs. Jones's claim, on account of the arrears due to Lady Rachel for the maintenance of her children, and in respect to her Ladyship's application of the general payments, with respect to the maintenance of the children in general; it was to be observed, that by the settlement the estates were charged with a provision for the maintenance of the younger children, and this charge must remain on the estate till it is proved to be discharged. And as to the allowance for the maintenance of Mr. William Morgan the eldest son, it was to be observed, that by a decree of the 26th of February 1731, the master was directed to see what was proper and fit to be allowed for the maintenance of Mr. William Morgan, during